Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 53 (AP)

Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah v. State of A. P

2008-01-29

B.PRAKASH RAO, L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2008
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J: Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2006 is filed by A.1 and A.2 in S.C. No.299 of 2005 on the file of the N Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), at Siddipet, aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.12.2005, rendered by that Court. Either not being aware of the filing of Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2006, or otherwise, Al filed Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2006 against the same judgment. Both the accused were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC alleging that they committed the murder of one Sri Venkat Ram Reddy, on the intervening night of 1/2.5.2004, at Pidched Village of Siddipet, Medak District. The trial Court found both of them guilty and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. A complaint dated 2.5.2004 was submitted by PW.1, the son of the deceased, to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gajwel, PW.15, stating that the deceased Venkatram Reddy, was having agricultural lands in Sy.No.678, called as Pochamma Bavi, and that paddy crop was cultivated in it., The crop was said to have been harvested 4 or 5 days earlier to that date, and that the deceased used to sleep in the field to watch the heap of harvested paddy. On the intervening night, Venkatram Reddy is said to have gone to the field on 1.5.2004 also, as usual, and on the morning of the next day, at about 6:30, their servant Gadda Hanmanthu, PW.6, informed that Venkatram Reddy, was found murdered, by causing injuries with an axe, on his head, and other parts of the body. PW.1 is said to have gone to the scene of offence along with other family members and found that his father lying dead. He suspected the involvement of some unknown persons, and requested the police to take necessary action. 3. A crime was registered by PW.15, and during the course of investigation, it emerged that PW.2 has seen the wife of A I, requesting the deceased to go to the field, stating that thrashing of paddy will take place in the morning of next day. 3. A crime was registered by PW.15, and during the course of investigation, it emerged that PW.2 has seen the wife of A I, requesting the deceased to go to the field, stating that thrashing of paddy will take place in the morning of next day. PW.9 is said to have revealed to the police that he has seen A 1, his wife, and son coming on a bullock cart at the midnight, on 1.5.2004, and when asked about the reason, A.1 is said to have replied that they are going to the Pochamma Bavi, to thrash the crop and to bring the hay. It is also said that PW.9 requested Al to supply water with his cart, for the marriage of his daughter, schedule to take place in the morning of next day, and accordingly A.1 supplied water in the morning. After the water was supplied, news is said to have spread all over the village about the death of the deceased, and A.1 is also said to have gone to the scene of occurrence along with others. PW.10 is another witness, who provided some clue to the police. According to this witness, both the accused are said to have come to him after 20 or 25 days, and confessed that they have committed the murder of the deceased. Both of them are said to have requested him to bail them out. At the instance of the accused, the material objects, viz., axes, used in committing the murder, are said to have been recovered, and PW.12 is the witness therefor. 4. With the help of the information and material referred to above, the prosecution framed the charges. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court convicted them and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, apart from levying fine. 5. Sri C. Padmallabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, submits that there is no direct evidence in the case, and the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is neither coherent nor consistent. He submits that in Ex.P.1, not even a suspicion was expressed against the accused, and subsequent steps were taken only to implicate the accused, who are otherwise innocent. He submits that in Ex.P.1, not even a suspicion was expressed against the accused, and subsequent steps were taken only to implicate the accused, who are otherwise innocent. He submits that the three circumstances, viz., the discussion that is said to have been taken place between PW.9 and AI; the extra judicial confession of PWs.1 and 2, before PW.11, and the recoveries effected under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, witnessed by PW.I2; are not at all reliable, or trustworthy: 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the prosecution has proved the motive, as well as the role of the accused in commission of the offence. He submits that the circumstantial evidence has provided the complete chain, to connect the accused, to the occurrence. 7. The nature of evidence collected by the prosecution has already been indicated in a brief manner in the preceding paragraphs. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16 and filed Exs.P.1 to P.11 PWs.1 to 3 are the sons, PWA is the wife; PW.5 is the brother, and PWs.6 and 7 are the servants of the deceased. None of them have witnessed the occurrence, nor did they provide any circumstances, to implicate the accused, particularly when EX.P.I was submitted. Important among the witnesses examined by the prosecution are, PWs.9, 11 and 12. The details of the evidence of these witnesses would be discussed a bit later. The other witnesses are mostly as regards the procedural aspects, and their evidence is not of much significance. 8. Soon after the occurrence, the police got the inquest of the body conducted, and EX.PA is the report thereof. The postmortem report is marked as Ex.P.9, and the Forensic Science Laboratory report is Ex.P.1I. The F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P.10. There is no dispute about the cause of the death of the deceased. 9. It is true that there is no direct evidence for the occurrence. In fact, PW.I, the son of the deceased, did not express suspicion against anyone, much less, the accused. He stated that some unknown persons might have committed the offence with ulterior motive. Therefore, it is to be seen, as to whether the prosecution has proved the circumstances, to connect the accused, to the occurrence. 10. One of the circumstances pleaded by the prosecution is, the discussion that is said to have taken place between PW.9 and A.1. He stated that some unknown persons might have committed the offence with ulterior motive. Therefore, it is to be seen, as to whether the prosecution has proved the circumstances, to connect the accused, to the occurrence. 10. One of the circumstances pleaded by the prosecution is, the discussion that is said to have taken place between PW.9 and A.1. There is no dispute that the marriage of the daughter of PW.9 had taken place at 8:30 a.m., on 2.5.2004. He was making preparations late in the night of 1.5.2004. He noticed AI, his wife and son, coming on a bullock cart, at that late hour. When he asked A.1, as to why he was coming with his family members at that time, he is said to have replied him that they are going to the Pochamma Bavi, to thrash the harvested paddy and to bring the hay. There exists consistent evidence to the effect that A.1, who was earlier a farm servant of the deceased, and subsequently he has taken the land of the deceased at Pocharnma Bavi, on lease/crop sharing. It was suggested that A.1 insisted the deceased to give the other agricultural lands also, on lease, and that the latter did not accede to the request. A.1 is said to have developed grouse about it. Another suggestion was to the effect that A.2 had his lands, by the side of one of the fields of the deceased, and there existed a boundary dispute. 11. In the course of chief-examination, PW.9 categorically stated that he requested Al to supply water in the cart in the next morning and acceding to his request, A.1 had supplied water in a barrel. When the news of the death of the deceased spread in the village, several villagers, including this witness, as well as A I are said to have gone to the scene of occurrence. 12. In the cross-examination, no suggestion was made to the effect that A1 did not supply water to PW.9. If that part of the evidence is to be accepted, it is but natural, that the reply given by A1, that himself and his family members are going to the field at Pochamma Bavi at midnight, deserves to be accepted. 12. In the cross-examination, no suggestion was made to the effect that A1 did not supply water to PW.9. If that part of the evidence is to be accepted, it is but natural, that the reply given by A1, that himself and his family members are going to the field at Pochamma Bavi at midnight, deserves to be accepted. Nobody disputed that the deceased was sleeping at that place, with a view to watch the thrash operations, that were to take place in the next morning with the participation of AI. It needs to be noted that, PW.9 did not speak anything, about A2. 13. The second circumstance is, the extra judicial confession, said to have been made by A-1 and A2 before PW.11. About 20 or 25 days subsequent to the date of occurrence, both the accused are said to have gone to this witness and confessed that they have committed the murder of Venkatram Reddy. PW.11 is said to be a person conversant with Court procedure and that he had arranged bails for number of persons, involved in various cases. It was in this context, that the accused are said to have requested him to arrange for their release and other steps. In the cross-examination, this witness stated that though both the accused have come to him, the request was made only by A1. 14. The third circumstance pleaded by the accused is confessional statement made by the accused before the police and the consequential recovery of the material objects, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW12 is a witness for recovery. Though the confessional portion of the statement leading to recovery is to be eschewed from consideration, the fact that the material objects were recovered; assumes its own significance. On behalf of the accused, nothing serious was suggested to PWI2, to disbelieve his version, nor any procedural defect or infirmity was pointed out. PW12 is a witness for recovery. Though the confessional portion of the statement leading to recovery is to be eschewed from consideration, the fact that the material objects were recovered; assumes its own significance. On behalf of the accused, nothing serious was suggested to PWI2, to disbelieve his version, nor any procedural defect or infirmity was pointed out. The cumulative effect of these three circumstances referred to above, discloses that, (a) A1 cultivated the lands of the deceased on crop sharing basis; there arose differences in the context of the demand made by A1, to give the other lands of the deceased also on lease to him; (b) PW.9 had seen AI, his wife and son coming on a bullock cart towards the same field, late in the night, on the date of occurrence; (c) that A1 and A2 have confessed before PW.11 that they have committed the murder of Venkatram Reddy, and (d) the recovery of material objects at the instance of A1 and A2, was evidenced by PW12. 15. Except for a casual reference to A2, neither any specific acts are attributed to him, nor the manner in which, his presence can be expected at the scene of offence; was indicated. The circumstantial evidence is consistent only vis-a-vis the 1st accused. Therefore, though we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court insofar as it convicted and sentenced AI, we are unable to sustain the conviction against A2. 16. We accordingly allow Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2006 in part, upholding the conviction and sentence against A I, and set aside the conviction and sentence against A2. A2 shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in any other case. Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2006 is dismissed.